Feudal Statistics 47 



and 1 1 66, thus Hugh de Dover (Kent) states that 

 on his " dominium " are 2^- Knights* of new 

 feoffment, and Earl Eu (Sussex) that on his 

 " dominium " are 6^ Knights* whose names are, 

 etc., and that he has no new feofFment. These 

 certificates are the Primer of Feudal Tenures in 

 England, but themselves contribute references to 

 older times, which add to the scanty contemporary 

 notices of Knight service, and it may be observed 

 that no one in the days of Hen. II. (Certificates), Retrospec- 

 John and Hen. III. (Testa de N.), or Hen. III. e 

 and Ed. I. (H. R.), seems to have been in doubt 

 as to the early existence of the feudal system ; in 

 elder times the question would perhaps rather 

 have been if such tenures were in usage before the 

 Conquest (see Spelman's Works, rebutting that 

 opinion which had been " legally " successful 

 t. Car. I.). Hence the full burden of a demon- 

 stration lies on those who hold that tenure by 

 Knight Service arose after 1086 ; the author of 

 Feudal England has given (notably on pp. 295, 

 296) several retrospective references, to which I 

 will add a few from the H. R. of Hen. III. and 

 Ed. I. In 2 Ed. I. (p. 42, v. ii., p. 42) Wm. I. 

 gave to Hugh . . . and his heirs as i^ fees the 

 Manor and Castle of Oakham ; (ibid.] Wm. I. gave 

 to a certain predecessor of Gilbt. de Umfravill the 

 Manor of Hamildon as i fee ; (ibid.] the Manor 

 of Preston formerly demesne of Wm. I. given by 

 him to a certain Earl as ij- fees ; (p. 166) 3 Ed. I., 

 a note of a free socage from the time of Harold 



* Id est, held by military tenants (whether knts. or not), 

 in proportions equal to 2^ and 6| fees. 



